With the slew of recent lawsuits that Stanford's court-appointed receiver has issued to sports properties that Stanford Financial Group entered into sponsorship agreements with, now including the Miami Heat, IMG and golfer David Toms, it seems these sponsees may be asked to explicitly prove what value they provided in exchange for the CD proceeds they received from Stanford. Caveat: we're not lawyers so if someone with a legal background would like to weigh-in with comments on the case, please feel free to do so in the comments section below. Here's an excerpt from the most recent lawsuit, which names the Miami Heat as defendants:

"33. CD Proceeds from the Ponzi scheme described above were transferred by or at the direction of the Stanford Parties to the Miami Heat Parties. The Miami Heat Parties did not provide reasonably equivalent value for the transfers of CD Proceeds to them and cannot establish that they are good-faith transferees.

34. The Receiver has identified payments of CD Proceeds totaling at least $1,319,125.45 from the Stanford Parties to the Miami Heat Parties. The payments to the Miami Heat Parties are related to Stanford’s sponsorship, advertising and promotional activities with the Miami Heat Parties.